New Zealand and Kenyan courts have rejected India’s attempt to secure exclusive marketing rights for basmati rice by invoking the WTO’s Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement. In separate rulings issued last month, both courts held that TRIPS cannot be used to claim geographical indication (GI) protection unless the product meets each country’s domestic legal requirements.
The New Zealand High Court dismissed APEDA’s (Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority) appeals challenging earlier decisions that denied trademark recognition for India’s basmati rice.
APEDA sought to register “Basmati” as a certification trademark in New Zealand under the Trade Marks Act, asserting that basmati already carries a GI tag under Indian law. In Kenya, it objected to the registration of trademarks for six rice varieties containing the word basmati, arguing that TRIPS obliges signatory nations to prevent misuse of GIs.
‘No TRIPS Obligation to Enforce Other Countries GIs’
New Zealand High Court ruled that while the TRIPS Agreement obliges WTO members to prevent misleading origin claims, it does not mandate the enforcement of geographical indications granted by other countries if they do not align with domestic law. New Zealand law already prevents misleading claims about a product’s origin under the Fair Trading Act.
The court upheld the 2024 decision of the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand (IPONZ) to reject the application, confirming that basmati is not uniquely tied to India. The judge noted that the "Basmati Growing Area" extends across both India and Pakistan, making an exclusive right for Indian producers unjustified. The court clarified that New Zealand consumers perceive "basmati" as a descriptive term for a type of aromatic, long-grain rice, not as a designation for rice exclusively grown in India.
APEDA had initially filed the application in February 2019, seeking exclusive rights to the basmati name. However, in July 2024, IPONZ rejected the request, citing the lack of distinctiveness required under New Zealand's Trade Marks Act.
TRIPS Is Not Self-Executing
Kenyan courts ruled that TRIPS is a self-executing treaty in Kenya and does not apply automatically unless incorporated into domestic law. Kenya’s Trade Marks Act already implements TRIPS obligations by allowing GIs to be registered as collective or certification marks.
Permitting direct invocation of TRIPS without following national procedures, the court said, would bypass the country’s legislative framework.
Global Implications
The rulings highlight the ongoing challenge India faces in securing exclusive international protection for basmati. While India holds a GI tag domestically, basmati cultivation spans both India and Pakistan, and many global courts view the term as descriptive rather than geographically exclusive.
The decisions are also significant for global rice trade dynamics. Pakistan’s rice industry welcomed the New Zealand verdict, saying it reinforces the country’s legitimacy as a basmati producer and strengthens its position in future international GI disputes.
For India, the setbacks in New Zealand, Kenya and earlier in Australia signal the need for a recalibrated global strategy. Experts say India may have to pursue bilateral agreements or adopt more flexible certification rules to align with varying international IP regimes.
As the competition for premium rice markets intensifies, these judgments could influence similar Basmati-origin disputes in other markets.